A.M. No. MTJ-04-1533 - Mabanto vs. Coliflores

Vicky C. Mabanto, the complainant, was involved in a civil ejectment case (Civil Case No. R-35618) against her, where judgment was rendered against her.
She appealed the decision to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City and, to stay the execution of the judgment, posted a supersedeas bond amounting to P45,000.

During the pendency of the appeal, Mabanto’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw the supersedeas bond.
On May 19, 1997, Mabanto learned, through the Clerk of Court of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 1, Cebu City, that Judge Mamerto Y. Coliflores had issued an ex-parte order dated September 23, 1996. This order granted the withdrawal of the rental deposit under the bond, which led to the release of funds to Mabanto.
Mabanto asserted that neither she nor her counsel received any notice or copy of the motion or the order authorizing such a release, thereby alleging that the judge concealed the action from her.

Judge Coliflores, in his comment, denied any concealment and insisted that Atty. Cynthia M. Matural, Mabanto’s counsel, had been furnished a copy of the order.
He explained that the release of the bond was intended to apply towards back rentals, noting that from the withdrawn amount, P15,000 had been returned to the court on September 25, 1996—leaving the remaining amount to serve as Mabanto’s supersedeas bond.
Mabanto further contended that the release of any portion of the supersedeas bond was unfounded since its primary purpose is to guarantee the performance of the judgment if it is later affirmed by the appellate court, particularly as the RTC had remanded the case for re-trial.

On January 10, 2005, the case was referred to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA).
A memorandum dated July 12, 2005, from the OCA recommended that Judge Coliflores be fined P2,000 (to be deducted from his retirement benefits) for his actions. The OCA considered that although there was no malice, the error occurred before the amendment of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court by A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC.
The recommendation was rooted in the legal requirement that a supersedeas bond in ejectment cases must remain intact as security until final resolution.

Section 19(2)(3) of Rule 70 of the Rules of Court mandates that moneys deposited as supersedeas bonds must be held until the final disposition of the appeal and disposed of according to the judgment. Furthermore, the plaintiff may only withdraw these funds when the defendant consents or fails to oppose the petition, a safeguard designed to protect the defendant’s interests.
Section 4, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court requires that all adverse parties receive copies of pleadings and notices of hearings. A motion issued without serving such notice is considered invalid and is treated as a non-actionable document.
Clerk Jose Legaspi and interpreter Rebecca L. Alesna confirmed that due to inadvertence, Mabanto was not served with notice regarding the motion to release the bond, which was a critical procedural lapse.

Whether Judge Mamerto Y. Coliflores committed an administrative offense by releasing a portion of the supersedeas bond without serving notice to Vicky C. Mabanto and her counsel.

Did the failure to notify the complainant amount to a violation of procedural due process requirements as mandated by the Rules of Court?
Whether the judge’s ex-parte issuance of the order to release the bond contravened the prescribed legal safeguards that ensure the rights of a party under an appeal.

Whether the absence of notice constitutes gross ignorance of the law sufficient to warrant administrative sanctions, despite the absence of nefarious intent.